Righting Wrongs the Maori Way

During the 1980s, New Zealand faced a crisis familiar to other Western
nations around the world. Thousands of children, especially members of
minority groups, were being removed from their homes and placed in
foster care or institutions. The juvenile justice system was
overburdened and ineffective. New Zealand’s incarceration rate for young
people was one of the highest in the world, but its crime rate also
remained high. At the same time, New Zealand’s punitive approach was
also in part a “welfare” model. Although young people were being
punished, they were also being rewarded by receiving attention. Yet they
were not being required to address the actual harm they had caused.

Especially affected was the minority Maori population, the indigenous
people of New Zealand. Maori leaders pointed out that the Western system
of justice was a foreign imposition. In their cultural tradition,
judges did not mete out punishment. Instead, the whole community was
involved in the process, and the intended outcome was repair. Instead of
focusing on blame, they wanted to know “why,” because they argued that
finding the cause of crime is part of resolving it. Instead of
punishment (“Let shame be the punishment” is a Maori proverb), they were
concerned with healing and problem-solving. The Maori also pointed out
that the Western system, which undermined the family and
disproportionately incarcerated Maori youth, emerged from a larger
pattern of institutional racism. They argued persuasively that cultural
identity is based on three primary institutional pillars—law, religion,
and education—and when any of these undermines or ignores the values and
traditions of the indigenous people, a system of racism is operating.

Maori leaders pointed out that the Western system
of justice was a foreign imposition. In their cultural tradition, the whole community was
involved in the process.

Because of these concerns, in the late 1980s the government initiated a
process of listening to communities throughout the country. Through this
listening process, the Maori recommended that the resources of the
extended family and the community be the source of any effort to address
these issues. The FGC [Family Group Conference] process emerged as the
central tool to do this in the child protection and youth justice
systems.

In 1989 the legislature passed a landmark Act of Parliament. The
Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act totally revamped the
focus and process of juvenile justice in New Zealand. Although it did
not use this terminology until later, the New Zealand legal system
became the first in the world to institutionalize a form of restorative
justice. Family Group Conferences became the hub of New Zealand’s entire
juvenile justice system. In New Zealand today, an FGC, not a courtroom,
is intended to be the normal site for making such decisions.

A young offender and her mother meet with police, court, and community officials. The goal is to draw up a plan that will hold the young person accountable while attempting to prevent further offenses.

Photo by Murray Wilson/Manawatu Standard.

The Conference

FGCs are a kind of decision-making meeting, a
face-to-face encounter involving offenders and their families, victims
and their supporters, a police representative, and others. Organized and
led by a Youth Justice Coordinator, a facilitator who is a social
services professional, this approach is designed to support offenders as
they take responsibility and change their behavior, to empower the
offenders’ families to play an important role in this process, and to
address the victims’ needs. Unlike restorative justice programs attached
to justice systems elsewhere, this group together formulates the entire
outcome or disposition, not just restitution.

Importantly—and
remarkably—they do this by consensus of all the participants, not by a
mere majority or the decree of an official. Victim, offender, family
members, youth advocate, or police can individually block an outcome if
one of them is unsatisfied

A Story

I [Allan] held a Conference for a young person who
was a refugee. He had come to New Zealand with his grandmother, who was
his caregiver, and an aunt. New Zealand had only just started taking
refugees from this young man’s country, so there were no other family
members and, in fact, few other residents of his culture nearby. The
three arrived in New Zealand with nothing but what they could carry.
Their only income was from a benefit paid by the New Zealand government,
which provided for only the very basics of food and accommodation.
The charge was serious; the young person had assaulted his grandmother
for cash. He had taken the rent money, and the grandmother was afraid of
what would happen now that she could not pay it. In desperation, she
reported the incident to the aunt, who in turn reported it to the
police.

The police referred the case to an FGC without making an arrest. I met
with the grandmother and aunt to consult on what format the Conference
might follow, and, in particular, what cultural and/or religious process
should guide it. In this meeting I learned that the grandmother had
been assaulted on more than one occasion and that she did not know where
to go for assistance.

I met with the young person to explain the process to him and to see if
he could identify any possible supports. It was agreed that I would
invite his teacher, but it was clear this was not going to be enough. I
contacted two organizations: Victims as Survivors, and the Refugee and
Migrants Services Trust. Neither organization had been involved with
Family Group Conferencing, but agreed to assist. I asked one to be the
direct support for the grandmother and the other to help the young
person meet his obligations to his grandmother.

I then arranged for the grandmother to meet with the supporting
organization so that she could share her story with them. They, in turn,
would help her share her story at the Conference. I advised the
grandmother that they would also transport her to the Conference and see
her safely back home. And I also arranged for the young person to meet
with his supporting organization. They agreed that they would assist him
in developing a plan to put things right and support him to complete
it.

School of Second ChancesInmates who get an education are less likely to reoffend when they're
released. So why are prison education programs getting cut?

The Conference started with a prayer in their native language, and all
parties used interpreters to ensure full understanding. The grandmother
told her story in much detail, as did the young person. As the young
person began to understand the impact he was having on his grandmother,
tears came to his eyes. The young man eventually told of his life in a
refugee camp before the three arrived in New Zealand, what he had to do
to survive, and how in his new community he felt he could not mix with
others if he did not have money. Clearly, loneliness, anger, and hurt
were shared by both the young man and his grandmother.

The plan that came out of the Conference required the young person to
pay in full all the money he had taken. He was given help to find
part-time employment. It was agreed that he could not live with his
grandmother until she felt safe with him in the house. The plan provided
also for counseling to help him overcome the anger that he carried from
his experiences in the refugee camp. A mentor was found from his own
culture who would check that he kept his promises and put things right
with his grandmother. The putting right called for him to cook a meal
for his grandmother and to make an apology. He was also required to
complete community work and attend school every day. He would receive
support with his homework.

The plan was successful. The young man did no further offending, and he
completed all his outcomes. Most valuable of all, both he and his
grandmother found new friends and support that stayed with them, well
beyond the Family Group Conference plan, and assisted them in starting
their new lives in New Zealand.

Interested?

Forty years since prison, Patrice Gaines still fights to get free.

Ex-cons show each other the way out at San Francisco's Delancey Street.

Ex-offenders and families of victims ask, how can we resolve
the tension between our need to protect society, and our desire to believe in human redemption?